ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

CoBuddy vs Step 3.7 Flash

Step 3.7 Flash comes out ahead, 63 to 46 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Baidu

    CoBuddy

    Released May 6, 2026

    46/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.28 / $1.13
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove CoBuddy
  2. Our pick

    StepFun

    Step 3.7 Flash

    Released May 29, 2026

    63/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.20 / $1.15
    • Context256K
    Full specs Remove Step 3.7 Flash

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Step 3.7 Flash is our pick

Step 3.7 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 63/100 against CoBuddy (46). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.

  • CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
  • Lowest priceStep 3.7 FlashStep 3.7 Flash $0.438 · CoBuddy $0.492 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextStep 3.7 FlashStep 3.7 Flash 256,000 · CoBuddy 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsStep 3.7 FlashCoBuddy: Text · Step 3.7 Flash: Text, Images, Video
  • Self-hostingStep 3.7 FlashPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightCoBuddyStep 3.7 Flash
Price50%6264
Inputs & features30%3580
Context window20%2536
Overall100%46/10063/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

CoBuddy vs Step 3.7 Flash specifications side by side
SpecificationCoBuddyBaiduStep 3.7 FlashStepFun
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)——
ECI rank——
Price per million tokens
Input$0.28$0.20 (best)
Output$1.13 (best)$1.15
Cached input—$0.04
Blended (3:1)$0.492$0.438 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 1 providersOfficial StepFun (Global) API
Limits
Context window131,072 tokens256,000 tokens (best)
Max output65,536 tokens256,000 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoYes
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoYes
ReasoningYesYeslow · medium · high
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpen
API model ID—step-3.7-flash
API providers119 (best)
ReleasedMay 6, 2026May 29, 2026
Knowledge cutoff—Mar 1, 2026
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • CoBuddy$5.06
  • Step 3.7 Flash$4.30
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: CoBuddy or Step 3.7 Flash?

Step 3.7 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 63/100 against CoBuddy (46). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.

Which is cheaper, CoBuddy or Step 3.7 Flash?

Step 3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.20 input / $1.15 output per million tokens (official StepFun (Global) API price). CoBuddy costs $0.28 input / $1.13 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.438 per million tokens for Step 3.7 Flash versus $0.492 for CoBuddy (1.1× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. CoBuddy has not been scored yet and Step 3.7 Flash has not been scored yet.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for CoBuddy and Step 3.7 Flash yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Step 3.7 Flash has the largest context window at 256,000 tokens, against 131,072 for CoBuddy. Maximum output per response: CoBuddy up to 65,536, Step 3.7 Flash up to 256,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

CoBuddy accepts text; Step 3.7 Flash accepts text, images and video. Step 3.7 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Step 3.7 Flash publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; CoBuddy is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Step 3.7 Flash is the newest, released May 29, 2026. CoBuddy came out May 6, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Step 3.7 Flash Mar 1, 2026.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons